|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Laws of Wrestling Part Deux
Rex Holman added to this discussion on January 3, 2010
|
Part Deux(taken from Hot Shots)
I was listening to the commentary by Jake Herbert on the Midlands Finals and he made reference during the Graff v Bell final about risk. I had written a risk/reward law awhile ago. As always the form that manifests on the mat involves so many intelligent sensory systems, high level processes and mastery of laws when done effectively. Graff was the master. All sports athletes present some level of mastery or rather efficiency at what they do. Wrestlers must account for numerous processes and laws, some of which are innate and others are planned. So much of what takes place on the mat is lost on the casual observer. In other sports, there is a simple means to an end(shooting a hoop, scoring a goal, etc. ) of which anyone can identify. Hence, wrestling is somewhat ambiguous and unfamiliar, making it a hard sell to those unaware. We have a tendency to think the product will sell itself as we can mirror the athletes and feel what they feel and understand at their level, but other's cannot. However, these announcers are doing a much better job at explaining the processes and unseen laws at play. I really like the combo of Jim Gibbons and Tim Johnson as announcers. Anyway, just my two cents.
Law of Risk/Reward-Assumption of risk must be minimized and rewards maximized. To do this, one must engage in skillful activity of familiar position. Assumption of risk must be held accountable to the reward. One incurs some measure of risk when attempting to materially alter an existing position. One must be willing to take on necessary risks in order to create opportunities. Unnecessary risk is considered poor form. Each opponent is unique and presents risks relative to their abilities and techniques. These risks must be managed. Risk/Reward is always correlative.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Laws of Wrestling Part Deux
Pat Costilow added to this discussion on January 3, 2010
|
Not to hijack your thread, Rex, but I liked Herbert along with the regular announcing pair. He brought some feel and sense of what is going on in the wrestling world.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Laws of Wrestling Part Deux
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on January 4, 2010
|
|
Quote from Pat Costilow's post:
|
|
"Not to hijack your thread, Rex, but I liked Herbert along with the regular announcing pair. He brought some feel and sense of what is going on in the wrestling world."
|
Having watched him in some Flo clips, I'm surprised he stayed as reserved (proper???) as he did.
Rex... Always a great read! Great stuff. Still read the Law Of Pace to the kids every now and again.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Laws of Wrestling Part Deux
Rex Holman added to this discussion on January 6, 2010
|
Pat-
I like Herbert as an announcer. He is a face man and could be an ESPN guy if he were to put the the same type of effort in developing his broadcasting skills as he does wrestling.
Mark-
Your emphasis on "proper" stuck. Proper really means an agreed upon standard (by professionals) which encompasses variables central to the issue being discussed. While coaches will agree on 90-95% of things that leaves quite a bit of disparity between them. That 5-10% of disparity is really a difference of opinion that stems from the coach's experience and subjection. Knowing this explains for the questioning of interpretations of the official, different styles which coaches teach, areas which coaches emphasize, and training modalities which coaches implement to name a few. It is actually this 5-10% difference that separates the good from the great. As the difference is in the details.
Also, do you feel that explicitly telling kids laws of wrestling is helpful for them in conceptually understanding what you are trying to get them to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
